Strauss, Kupfer & Co. v. Labsap
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Daniel D. Eisher, Judge. Plaintiffs, being the agents of the defendant in selling the defendant’s goods at the auction sale, could not legally buy in said goods themselves, and could not charge the defendant with any difference between the price at which the plaintiffs bought in- said goods and the contract price agreed to be paid by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Daniel D. Eisher, Judge. Plaintiffs, being the agents of the defendant in selling the defendant’s goods at the auction sale, could not legally buy in said goods themselves, and could not charge the defendant with any difference between the price at which the plaintiffs bought in- said goods and the contract price agreed to be paid by the defendant. And, having failed to introduce any evidence showing what loss, if any, was sustained at the auction sale on such part of the goods as was sold to outsiders, the plaintiffs were not entitled to…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
This is an action for damages for the disaffirmance of a contract for the sale of goods. The *262plaintiffs recovered a judgment for the difference between the contract price and the net amount realized for the goods on a resale. The defendant has appealed.
It is conceded that the purchase was made; that the defendant subsequently refused to receive the goods; that they were afterwards resold at public auction at the place of delivery after due notice to the 'defendant of the date and place of sale; and that the amount of the judgment is the difference between the net amount realized at the resale…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Dustan v. . McAndrewNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Rickey v. TenbroeckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Dobbins v. EdmondsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Thornton v. IrwinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Garland v. WatsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Crawford v. DahlenbergMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926